JUDGMENT : 1. The State of Maharashtra assails the order dated 15th June, 1992 of the High Court of Bombay making a decree in terms of the award dated 9th March, 1992 passed by the mediator appointed by the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No. 559/1991. 2. The dispute between M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., respondent No.1 herein, and the State of Maharashtra pertained to the question whether, and to what ex- tent, premium was payable on the unearned-income said to have accrued to respondent No.1 upon purchase of certain immovable properties from the Union Carbide India Ltd. The controversy, unfortunately, raises the question of the propriety and impartiality of the mediator's award in that the mediator had earlier rendered professional legal advice to respondent No.1 respecting the same subject-matter and this information allegedly had been withheld at the time of the appointment as well as during the course of the proceedings culminating in the award. 3. We have heard Sri V.M. Tarkunde, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra and Sri F.S.Nariman, learned senior counsel for M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., the first respondent. 4. On 1st March, 1993 we had occasion, in the course of our order, to refer to the terms of the offer made by the first respondent to settle the controversy and the response of the State of 'Maharashtra. The need for the said order dated 1st March, 1993 and the directions contained therein were as a result of the particular stand then taken by the State of Maharashtra. It was in that context we had asked the Govt. of Maharashtra to file an affidavit in respect of the queries raised in our said order. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed on 20.3.1993. 5. Para 2(c) of the affidavit dated 20th March, 1993 filed by Sri Ram Govind Vartak, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, did not make manifest an attidue which could be considered proper. We do not, however, take serious view of the matter as we recognise that Sri Vartak was apparently disturbed by the effect of the discovery as to the mediator's alleged bias and Sri Vartak was trying his best to protect the interests of the State. We do not, however, take serious view of the matter as we recognise that Sri Vartak was apparently disturbed by the effect of the discovery as to the mediator's alleged bias and Sri Vartak was trying his best to protect the interests of the State. In adopting the stance that he took in said para 2(c), he had not then, perhaps, realised that if he withheld the information - which we seriously doubt he could have done in law - the State of Maharashtra would have exposed itself to an adverse inference drawn against it to the effect that had the information been disclosed, the same would have gone against it. This would have assumed materiality in the context of the first respondent's allegation that the State of Maharashtra itself had proposed the name of the mediator having already had in its possession a copy of the mediator's legal opinion dated 1.12.1989. These are some of the implications and fall-out of the stand taken by Sri Vartak in para 2(c) of the affidavit dated 26.3.1993. May be Sri Vartak was functioning under some strain having been confronted with a difficult situation and was doing his best to protect the interests of his Governments. Sri Vartak, however, has redeemed the position by his further affidavit dated 21st April,1993. Sri Vartak has expressed regret and has tendered an apology to the Court. We accept his apology and leave the matter at that. It is not necessary for him withdraw the allegations against the mediator. Suffice it to say that it is not necessary to investigate into them in view of the reasonable stand taken by Sri F.S.Nariman on behalf of respondent No.1 which the State of Maharashtra was asked to consider. Sri Vartak also states that in view of the settlement reached, it is not necessary to press the allegations against the mediator. 6. It now transpires that the State of Maharashtra, on the counsel of Sri V.M. Tarkunde, has substantially accepted the terms of settlement offered by respondent No.1 which while avoiding serious controversies which have the potential of embarrassing the mediator appointed by the High Court, would also ensure to the State the benefit of status quo ante in a substantial measure. In view of this, it is not necessary to investigate into the allegations against the mediator. The interests of the State of Maharashtra stand adequately protected. 7. In view of this, it is not necessary to investigate into the allegations against the mediator. The interests of the State of Maharashtra stand adequately protected. 7. There will now be an order in the following terms: [i] The consent order dated 13.9.1991 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.559 of 1991 (in Writ Petition No.209 of 1991) is hereby set aside. Consequently, the "Decision" of the Mediator Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (retired) dated 9th March, 1991 given pursuant to the said Consent Order is also set aside. [ii] Writ Petition No.209 of 1991 of M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. is restored to the file of the Bombay High Court and is directed to be heard and disposed of in accordance with law by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as expeditiously as may be possible. [iii] The first respondent, M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. shall, within four months from today, repay to the State of Maharashtra a sum of Rs. 12,39,53,908/- together with interest @ 17% per annum from 28.2.1992 till the date of payment. [iv] The State Government shall under- take to this Court, which it does, to pay to the first respondent without demur whatever amounts that may become due and payable to the first respondent pursuant to the final orders in Writ Petition No.209/1991 along with counter- veiling rate of interest at 17% per annum. [v] During the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent shall not alienate, encumber, part with possession or alter the nature and character of the immovable properties constituting the subject-matter of the purchases made by it from Union Carbide India Ltd. respecting which the claim for premium on the unearned income arises. The State of Maharashtra shall, in addition to all its other rights in respect of the matter, have a charge on the said property for the amount ultimately adjudicated as payable to it as premium on the unearned income. 8. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay is requested to have the writ petition listed before the appropriate Bench within two weeks of the re-opening of the High Court after the summer recess. 9. The special leave petition is finally disposed of accordingly. We place on record our appreciation of the service rendered by the learned senior counsel on both sides in resolving this dispute.